ueYTnon on Slave- hoi j 
Cj\ti cinnati, 1842.. 



m 



i 



mm 




Glass £^4 5 - 
Book ^ ^(,^ 1 



i 



7ft 7 /., 

SERMON 



ON 



SLAVE-HOLDING 

PREACHED BY APPOINTMENT, 

BEFORE THE 

SYNOD OF CINCINNATI, 



LATE STATED MEETING AT MOUNT PLEASANT, OHIO. 



OCTOBER 30th, 1841. 



(^ BY REV. J. BLANCHARD. 



CINCINNATI: 
1845. , 



P< 






SEHMON ON SLAVE-HOLDING. 



«' Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him, for ye were 
strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not atflict any widow, or father- 
less child. 

If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will 
surely hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you 
with the sword : and your wives shall be widows, and your children father- 
less."— Ex. XXII : 21 — 24. 

The principle and meaning of this passage is : — " Thou 
shalt not oppress^ or otherwise injure people who are defenceless and 
cannot stand for their rights.'''' No matter what makes them so. 
The widow is weak : the orphan child ignorant : and the stran- 
ger friendless : but all are helpless. Therefore, " Thou slialt 
not oppress them." 

Stranger, in the text, means, " One of another nation ; not 
an Israelite ;" as the Africans, originally brought to America. 

" Oppressing'"' a man, is not forcibly taking his money. 
This is robbery. Nor is it secretly purloining his goods, which 
is theft. Nor is it cheating him in trade ; which is called over- 
reaching, "going beyond and defrauding" one. — 1 Tijess. iv : 
6. But :— 

To oppress a man, is, to deprive him of his rights. — You rob 
him when you forcibly seize his property : you oppress him, when 
you take away his right to acquire and hold property. Rob- 
bery takes his goods, oppression touches his soul. The worst 
conceivable robbery, is,^ forcibly taking from a man his wife or his 
child. But the injury is a thousand times aggravated, when you 
place or hold a man in a condition or a state in which he can- 
not marry. If you carry otT by force,* a man's wife, or his child, 
you leave the sufferer in a condition of an afflicted man : but 
if you deprive him of the right to marry, you leave him in the 
condition of a brute. V 

The wickedness of oppression, beyond other wrongs, -further 
appears in this, — "That goods taken by force, or theft, or fraud, 
may be replaced by the likef; tut there is no equivalent for plun- 
dered rights. Nothing is a compensation to a man for lost man- 
hood. All the indulgences and privileges which you can be- 



3 

>o stow on a man who is deprived ol' the prerogatives of human 

V nature, are but the gratuitous favors which tyrants may grant, 

fi but their subjects must not claim. It is therefore, absurd for an 

r\ oppressor to talk of kindness to the man whom he oppresses, 

■ since no potsession is so valuable as the right to possess. And he 

- who pretends kindness to a man, whom he holds in a condition 

>' in which he is deprived of his natural rights, has no more right 

^ to be considered benevolent than the man who drops a shilling 

into my hand, after he has first fastened a chain upon my arm. 

Such is the kindness which the owner shows to the slave : — -the 

kindness of the man who gives me warm and comfortable clothes, 

while he robs me ol the very body for which the clothing was 

made. 

I propose in this discourse : 

I. To explain why slaveholding necessarily corrupts, and 
eventually destroys all true religion in the churches M'liere it 
is tolerated. 

II. To show that the property-holding of men is the worst 
conceivable form, and the last possible degree of oppression, 
and is therefore forbidden in the text. 

III. To consider some arguments in favor of slaveholding, 
professedly drawn from the Bible. 

1. Slaveholding necessairly subverts all true religion. 

Whatever fundamentally corrupts the doctrine of God, des- 
trovs the force and meaning of the first table of the law, which 
contains man's duties to God. For whatever leads men to regard 
Jehovah as something different from what he is, prevents their 
acting towards him as they ought. 

So whatever fundamentally corrupts the doctrine of man, 
making him to bo regarded as a mere animal, or at best, a hu- 
man creature without rights, subverts the second table of the 
law ; which contains man's duties to his neighbor. For as it is 
impossible for the man who has erroneous notions of God, to love 
him with all the heart : so it is impossible for the man to love his 
neighbor as himself, who regards his neighbor as a piece of 
property, which may be bought or sold as convenience or in- 
terest may require. 

Hence, whereever men own men as slaves, all the relative du- 
ties of life gradunlly sink into neglect. For the reason why a 
man loves his neighbor as himself, is, that he sees that neighbor 
to be every way his equal : — made in the same image, and heir 
to the same hopes. But it is a natural impossibility that a man 
should love one cla?-- of men as his equals, while he treats anoth- 
er class as on a Icve with his dogs. 

The habit of disregarding the sacredness of humanity in 
the person of the slave, breaks up and confounds, in the young 



slave-holder's mind, all just notions of justice and equality be- 
tween man and man, and he forms his life upon some vague and 
wretched law of honor which allows the practice of the most 
disgusting vice and crime. 

In such a community, it is easy to see that every virtue 
which grows out of the law of love to our neighbor must rapidly 
decline, and die out ; and it is a point settled by revelation, that 
the man who does not love his brother whom he hath seen, 
will not love God whom he hath not. And thus slave holding by 
causing men to be regarded as creatures without rights, repeals 
one half of God's law and destroys the force of the other ; and, 
in the end exterminates every vestige of true religion from the 
human heart. 

II. But I am to show, in the second place, that the property- 
holding of men is the worst conceivable former and last possible 
degree of oppression : — the sin forbidden in the text. 

It may be seen by mere inspection, that owning a man as 
property, includes in itself, every element of oppression ; for to 
own a man, is, to own all his rights. Of course, there can be 
no such thing as compensation to a man thus bereft. Every fa- 
vor shown to him is a mere gratuity — a gift which he has no 
right to claim. And if it is oppression to deprive a man of one, 
or a part of his rights; it is plainly the worst possible oppression 
to rob him of all. 

The objection which Americans had to being taxed by a 
Parliament where they were not represented, was — that it em- 
powered Parliament to swell the tax so as to draw from the peo- 
ple all their earnings save a bare subsistence : and even to go 
below this into their needful bread. " This," said the revolution- 
ists, " destroys in us the right of getting and holding property." 
The colonies had before freely raised men and money to fight 
the battles, and sustain the honor of the mother country, but 
they would not bear a three pence tax on tea, when it involved 
the surrender of ther right to tax themselves ; for this they de- 
clared, was equivalent to yielding altogether the right of private 
property. 

Now all who know the meaning of the word, know that the 
slave is divested, not only of this, but of every other right, even 
the right to his own person. Having no legal existence, he can 
claim nothing by law. Belonging to no society, he is in the 
condition of an exile at his own hearth stone. The woman and 
infants, which by mere necessity of speech, are called his wife and 
children, are yet not his; they are the property of others. Of the 
miUions of Bibles in our land not one is opened to him, and the 
pure waters of salvation must flow to his soul, if at all, only 
through channels opened by slave holding hands. He is thus 



reduced to the anomalous condition of a wretched non-descript 
human animal, having the shape, faculties, and susceptibiUties 
of a man, with the state and condition of a brute. This is op- 
pression in its worst conceivable form, and in the last possible 
degree. 
The argument may he stated in another form, thus : — 

1. All usurpation of power is oppression. 

2. Hence usurping absolute power is j)erfcct oppression. 

3. Slaveholdiug is such usurpation, and, I her ff ore, oppression 
in the last degree. 

That slaveholding is such usurpation of power, is proved 
by the following argument : — 

When God says : Ezek. xviii : 4. — " Behold all souls are 
mine." He plainly claims, sole, absolute right to control the 
souls of men. Hence, civil rulers, parents, etc., claim to derive 
their authority to rule minds, from God ; and if they have no 
authority from God, they have none at all ; for without power 
derived from God, no person has a right to command another 
to obey him. 

But the slave holder pretends to buy his title to the soul and 
body of his slave for money, and to buy it from a man like him- 
self! The slaveholder is no-where appointed God's delegate to 
exercise this property power over his fellow, either by the law 
of nature or of revelation. The only kind of authority over 
servants, recognized by Christianity, is a right in masters to that 
service for which they ^^ give unto their servants that zchich is just 
and equal''' between man and man. Col. iv. 1. 

I know that it is said, the slaveholder claims no property in 
the soul, but only in the bodily service of the slave. But this 
is not true. For if you could put the mind of a brute into the 
body of the slave, his value would not be the eighth part of the 
price of a horse. Whereas, a slave commonly brings the price of 
eight or ten horses, it is therefore plain that the slaveholder buys 
the rational soul of the man. This is what he wants ; the intel- 
ligent principle, the human understanding, the God-image in the 
man ; he wants that which makes the slave capable of guiding 
his horses and directing his plough. It is therefore plain that 
the human soul is the thing which is purchased. 

And the property power claimed over the slave, is as perfect as 
that to any other goods. All property is merely a life-use of the arti- 
cle, with power to bequeath it at death : and this right, the own- 
er claims in Ids slave's soul and body. And as we have before 
seen that his power is usurped, and absolute ; it is plainly the 
worst conceivable form and last possible degree of oppression. 

Another proof that slaveholding is the worst possible oppres- 
sion, is, that the state into which it sinks the slave is the worst 



possible, for his moral character. It deprives him of every in- 
fluence calculated to raise him to virtue ; and loads him with 
every w^cight adapted to sink him into vice. 

All can see, at a glance, that a slave's virtues are of little 
earthly use to him. Honesty and industry in business will not 
bring him wealth, nor can dishonesty and idleness sink him in- 
to a lower poverty than that which belongs to the condition of 
a slave. For no man can be poorer than he who does not own 
himself. Intelligence, talents, refinement, all that constitutes 
the glory of a civilized man, are but so many curses to one 
doomed to slavery for life. Everything that quickens his sensi- 
bilities, only makes him the more alive to the misery and degra- 
dation of his condition ; for it is only while he forgets that he is 
a man, that he can be contented as a slave. 

Those considerations which hold back others in the hour of 
temptation, viz : the fear of reproach and loss of character, 
have no influence over him. The slave for life knows that he 
shall never be a man. He has not therefore a mans character 
to lose. Yet he is subject to the same inordinate passions and 
^appetites which draw others into sin ; while he lies all defenceless 
and exposed to the most violent and vile passions of other men. 
Thus while slavery strips the slave of every safe-guard of his 
virtue, it lets loose upon him all the temptations which destroy it. 

Who then can reduce man to this terrible state, or retain 
him in it, and not justly dread the denunciations of God against 
oppression 1 While he strips his slave of the safe-guards of vir- 
tue and the attributes of humanit}^, he usurps for himself the 
prerogatives of God ! Nay, worse still. He demands of the 
slave a submission not claimed by God ; and enforces it by 
means which are never resorted to by the Devil ! For Jehovah 
never governs his rational creatures by mere will ; and Satan 
never coerces, thoueh he tempts men to serve him. The slave- 
holder does both. The rule of life to the slave is locked up in the 
owner's breast. He knows not to-day what submissions he may 
be called to on the morrow. Thus he has no fixed rule or 
law of life. 

While the servants of God have the full and fixed expres- 
sion of his righteous and holy will, so that he who " doeth the 
things may live by them :" the wretched slave must wait for his 
law at his master's lips, and can never know beforehand, wheth- 
er the command, when it comes, will be the dictate of reason, 
of passion, or caprice. He has therefore no occasion for a con- 
science, seeing he has no law to regulate its decisions : and he 
stupidly plods on, through a life reduced to three particulars ; 
viz : to eat, to obey and die ! Miserable, miserable man ! — 



More^iiserable oppressor! The one has surely no hope in 
this life : the other, a worse prospect for the next. 
Objections drawn from the Bible. 

III. " But," it is objected, " if slaveholding is the worst 
possible oppression which a man can inflict upon his neighbor, 
why is it not so denounced in the word of God ?" 

Ans. The sin of oppression, is, throughout the scriptures, more 
denounced than, perhaps, any other form of transgression, and, 
as we have seen the worst possible form of oppresssion is slave- 
holding. The mere fact that a wicked practice is not con- 
demned by its modern name, does not prove that God is not dis- 
pleased with it. Theatres, gambling, boxing, and other Uke 
practices of acknowledged vileness are not mentioned by name 
in the Bible : yet such an omission is never plead in mitigation 
of their wickedness. 

Objection IL 

But the grand objection to the doctrine of this discourse iSj 
say they ; " The practice of Christ and the Apostles. They 
founded churches in slaveholding countries, and received slave- 
holders as members without denouncing the practice as sin." 

That the Apostles planted churches in slaveholding coun> 
tries I admit ; but that they allowed one part of their members 
to hold another part as their slaves, as is the practice of southern 
churches at the present day, I deny. The su[)position seems to 
me absurd in itself: that churches planted by inspired men, 
should have incorporated into their policy, what is acknowledged- 
to be one of the worst, if not the very worst institution of hea- 
thenism, viz : slavery, while they suffered persecution unto death 
for rejecting other heathen practices, less hurtful than this ! 

The Apostles' doctrine on the subject of slaveholding is 
very easily apprehended by every fair unbiased mind. Wherever 
a church was founded amid a slaveholding population, three 
practical questions arose, and only three, by deciding which the 
Apostles declared th^Vhole mind of God respecting slavery. 

1st. What shalhc'onverted slaves do, whose masters remain 
heathen ? 

2nd. The duty of Christian masters whose slaves remain 
heathen 1 

3rd, Where both master and slave were converted to 
Christianity ? 

1. The first was a very common case, for the first converts 
of Christianity were among the most despised and oppressed of 
the people. Hence the converted slaves naturally wished to 
know of the Apostles whether the law of Chiist allowed them to 
claim liberty from their masters. The Apostles would not of 
course, set each slave, without any concert, to rebel, single- 
handed, against the whole power of the Roman Empire, by 



8 

whose laws his owner held him in slavery; as that would be mad- 
ly to throw away their lives. They therefore, directed the con- 
verted slave to endure his condition with patience till he could 
get free : 1 Cor. vn : 20; "Art thou called being a servant" 
(doulos, servant, but may mean slave), care not for it [Greek, 
meleto, i. e. do not grieve and vex yourself about it. Bear it pa- 
tiently]. '•'• But if thou mayst be made free, use it rather.'''' The 
phraseology is peculiar. The Apostle does not say ; " If your 
master offers to emancipate you; but '' If thou (dunasai eleu- 
theros genesthai) are able to get free, use it rather-" In plain 
English, bear your bonds till you can safely escape them, or as 
one has beautifully paraphrased it : 

" Wait for the dawning of a brighter day, 
And snap the bond the moment when you may." 

2d. The second case was, where the master was converted 
to Christ, and the slave not ; should he send his slave away, or 
retain him ? 

The answer given by the apostle is in Col. iv : I ; " Masters, 
give unto your servants that which is just and equal," or more 
rigidly rendered, "give them justice and equality," that is, in 
plain terms, in all business matters, /reai them as your equals.'^'' 

3d. The last cas , where master and slave were converted, as 
were Onesimusand Philemon, is settled in Philemon, 16th verse 
— where Paul commands Philemon to receive Onesimus, "Not 
as a servant (doulos), but rts above aservatit, a brother btloved." 
So Paul commanded and Philemon promptly obeyed. Onesi- 
mus was immediately freed, was soon joined in an Ecclesiastical 
commission with Tychicus, and soon after became bishop of 
Ephesus. 

These three cases include all that could possibly arise 
respecting slavery in planting the first churches in slaveholding 
• lands, and in every casn the Apostles take the ground of the 
immediate abolition of the practice. ^ 

It follows, that it is the duty of all Q^istians and Christian 
ministers to testify against the practice of slaveholding, openly 
and constantly. And if they refuse to do so, if the minister 
will not speak to his hearers, the merchant to his customers, the 
physician to his patients, the lawyer to his clients, the man of 
office to his constituents and every dependant to his patron ; 
they are guilty of betraying Christ in the person of the least 
and most despised of his brethren on earth. 



LEJa'12 



